VALDEZ v.

PEOPLE
November 23, 2007 | Tinga, J.
Rule 113, Sec. 5: “Penal Knowledge”
RBA as substitute for LAS

DOCTRINE: “The phrase ‘in his presence’ therein, connotes penal knowledge on the part of the arresting officer.”

CASE SUMMARY: Valdez was apprehended without a warrant after barangay officials observed him looking around
after alighting from a bus. His bag was then searched and then leaves were then discovered and confiscated. Valdez was
convicted for Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs by the RTC, which the CA affirmed. SC reversed, holding that Valdez
did not commit any act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime,
so he cannot be held to be in flagrate delicto. Thus, his arrest was unlawful and so was the search of his belongings.

FACTS:
 Petitioner Valdez was charged with Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs (Marijuana).
 Prosecution version of events:
o Valdez was seen by 3 barangay tanods (witnesses of the prosecution), who saw Valdez lugging a bag
while alighting from a mini-bus in Aringay, La Union. The tanods observed that Valdez looked
suspicious, and that he was looking for something.
o They approached him but he purportedly attempted to run away. The tanods gave chase, put
him under arrest, and brought him to the Brgy. Captain Mercado, where he was ordered by
Mercado to open his bag. The bag allegedly contained a pair of pants, eggplants, and dried marijuana
leaves wrapped in newspaper and cellophane.
o Valdez was then taken to the police station for further questioning.
o There was some inconsistency in the testimonies of the 3 tanods concerning who brought out
the contents of Valdez’ bag, it appearing to be Valdez himself or either of two tanods.
 Defense version:
o Valdez was approached by one of the tanods who asked where he was going and asked to see the
contents of his bag, to which he acceded, and thus showed them its contents. The other two
tanods then arrived and restrained Valdez before bringing him to the house of Mercado, with
the bag being carried by one of the tanods.
o At Mercado’s house, the bag was opened by the tanod and Mercado himself, and they brought
out an item which turned out to be marijuana. Valdez denied ownership thereof.
o Valdez was threatened with imprisonment if he did not give the marijuana to someone in order for
said person to be apprehended. Valdez refused such order and he was then brought to the police
station and charged with the current offense.
 The forensic chemist was also presented during the trial, and he testified that the specimen he examined
tested positive of marijuana, but then disclosed that he did not know how the specimen was taken from
Valdez nor how the same reached the police officers. He could also not identify whose marking was on
the inside of the cellophane wrapper of the specimen.
 RTC convicted Valdez as charged. CA affirmed the RTC decision, as it found no reason to overturn the
presumption of regularity in favor of the barangay tanods. Appealed to SC.

ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest of Valdez was valid (corollarily, w/n the search and seizure was valid) - NO

RULING:
 For the exception (to the general rule that arrests require a warrant to be valid) in Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 to
operate, two elements must be present: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime, and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
 In this case, Valdez’ act of looking around after alighting from the bus was natural, as he was merely
looking for his destination. Neither can his purported flight as the tanods approached him be construed as
adequate to form personal knowledge that he had just engaged in, was actually engaging in, or was
attempting to engage in criminal activity. Thus, he cannot be deemed to have been apprehended in
flagrante delicto.
  It is not unreasonable to expect that Valdez, who was walking the streets at night, after being
observed and followed by three unknown persons, would flee at their approach.
 Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt, as other circumstances must be considered in order to attribute
guilt to the fact of flight.
 The phrase “in his presence” in the above-cited Rule connotes penal knowledge (Robbie’s note: I take
this to mean knowledge of actual criminal activity) on the part of the arresting officer. Thus, the
requirement of an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime.
 The Court held that under the circumstances, the proper action of the barangay tanods should have been a
stop-and-frisk, in order to allay any suspicions that they had about Valdez. Note that a Terry Search must
precede a warrantless arrest.
 Being that Valdez’ arrest was unlawful, the warrantless search conducted is also unlawful, and thus
the evidence is inadmissible for being fruit of the poisonous tree.

DISPOSITION: CA reversed, Valdez acquitted.

NOTES/OTHER ISSUES:
 Valdez did not question the legality of his arrest before his arraignment, thus, said right to question the same is
deemed waived.
 On the argument that Valdez consented to the search: consent must be voluntary in order to validate an illegal
search, such that the consent is unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or
coercion. In this case, the alleged consent was not proven, and it was also apparent that Valdez was already
under the coecive control of the barangay tanods when the search of his bag was demanded. The Court held that
“his implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been more than passive conformity given under coercive or
intimidating circumstances.”
 The chain of custody requirement imposed by the Dangerous Drugs act was not followed in this case.